Redistricting Wars in America: Gerrymandering & Democracy

Keefer Ho

On November 4, 2025, voters in California overwhelmingly approved legislation in a 64.4% to 35.6% vote, authorizing the use of a newly drawn congressional map until 2030 [1]. This map would heavily favour Democratic candidates. The amendment known as Prop 50 was introduced in response to redistricting attempts in Texas – under the direction of the Trump administration – that aimed to give Texas Republicans 5 additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the U.S., the government’s legislative body is divided into 2 chambers: the House of Representatives (lower chamber) and the Senate (upper chamber). Redistricting efforts are focused on control over the lower chamber since unlike the Senate, which has equal representation across states (each state has 2 senators), the House has proportional representation.

Gerrymandering is the process of purposely drawing congressional districts to benefit one party. U.S. House elections, like British “first past the post” voting, do not give favour to larger victory margins. A win by 20% is given the same weight as a win by 1% where in each case the same outcome is reached. As a result, when drawing districts, it is possible for a minority party in the population to have a majority of seats in the House by either splitting up opposing party voters or clumping them into one district so the party has a higher chance of winning the remaining seats. This practice of splitting and clumping leads to the formation of unnatural looking – or gerrymandered – districts.

There are 2 main requirements for the drawing of districts. Firstly, districts cannot be drawn primarily based on race. This precedent comes from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case Shaw v. Reno (1993) where an attempt to create a second black-majority district in North Carolina – that resulted in a meandering district with sections roughly the width of a highway – was ruled unconstitutional [2]. Secondly, beginning with Baker v. Carr (1962) and strengthened by subsequent cases, SCOTUS ruled that districts must also have approximately equal populations to ensure that each person’s vote counts for the same value. Baker v. Carr arose after Tennessee had failed to redraw their district maps since 1901 and rural migration to urban areas meant that votes in rural districts were now worth significantly more than votes in more populated urban districts, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment [3]. It also established the doctrine of “one person one vote.” However, other than these provisions, states are essentially free to decide the process in which congressional districts are drawn.

Gerrymandering has existed since the onset of the modern U.S. political system. Yet never has it been so widely, and indeed freely, perpetuated as it is today with little care of its detrimental ramifications for ordinary constituents. Generally, attempts to manipulate congressional districts have been done under the radar with an air of subtlety surrounding them. Recent redistricting attempts, however, have been brash, with President Trump explicitly stating his desire to change congressional maps in Republican controlled states to secure more seats in the mid-term elections in 2026 where he faces the very real threat of losing control of the House [4].

Such rhetoric though is hardly limited to conservatives. Indeed, it was the entire megaphone behind California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 ballot which he promoted as a way to “fight fire with fire,” essentially rigging their own elections to “counter Donald Trump’s scheme to rig next year’s congressional election” [5; 6]. The blame game can, and has, been played to little fruition. California claims Texas started the redistricting battle by gerrymandering its own map mid-cycle. Republicans, likewise, happily point towards blue states like Illinois in their own tit-for-tat justifications for redistricting efforts; the Princeton Redistricting Report Card rated Illinois an F – only 54% of Illinois voters are Democrats, however, they hold 14 of the 17 House seats [7]. Yet despite this, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) still pushed for a plan to further gerrymander Illinois’ map in addition to that of his own state, New York. Both plans were ultimately rejected by Democratic leaders in both states [8].

It is difficult to imagine a world without gerrymandering, but that does not detract from its harmfulness. The practice has been a one of the factors destroying local politics by saturating it with federal politics and has turned up another gear since the beginning of this political fistfight. What is meant by the saturation of local politics with federal politics is that now, because of the relevant discourse, even when the people vote, such as the case in California, they vote overbearingly with national interests in mind, not local challenges and problems. The purpose of the House’s representation system is for the representative to, tautologically, represent the people of their district – the people vote for the person they believe will best serve them. Current rhetoric, however, has flipped the script by making it about what the district can do for the party (representative) in Congress, rather than what the party can do for the district. It robs constituents of democratic representation in favour of pre-determined results by party elites. By drawing districts in order to get a certain result, the people deciding the district’s representative are not the district’s residents themselves thereby nullifying the ethos of representation in the House and indeed that of American democracy as envisioned by the Framers.

In spite of this, political scientists have made the case that gerrymandering is a natural part of political competition and partisan behaviour that is inherent to democracy and can help stabilize political systems and create clearer lines of accountability. Former SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia echoed similar beliefs when he wrote that the political party in power uses district lines to lock in its present advantage which, when done inevitably by every state, provides “legislative incentives for self-correction” as Democratic gerrymandering in some places are countered by Republican gerrymandering in others and vice versa [9]. While true, the subsequent more equal national representation fails to offset the negative effects of extremely disproportionate local representation.

For a party that has, historically, been a supporter of local rights and limiting central government, GOP lead efforts to keep the federal government and its judicial wing out of state redistricting campaigns in the name of state determination, such as in Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri and Ohio, have the opposite effect. Most recently, SCOTUS case Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) solidified precedent set by Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) which declared all political claims concerning gerrymandering – except for racial claims – nonjusticiable [10; 9]. This means that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to settle redistricting disputes like the current ones in Texas and California. When states – controlled by one party – are actively trying to increase their party’s nation-wide control, sometimes it counterintuitively takes federal institutions to step in and prevent the state from not acting in the interests of its people.

The redistricting war waging between state lines achieves political gain at the cost of local power and proper democratic representation. Even if, overall, gerrymandering evens itself out, or even if the maps are enacted with good intentions, it does not redeem the damaging effects it has on local constituents. As SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent of Rucho v. Common Cause, it is not beyond the court’s judicial capabilities to remedy the constitutional violations of political gerrymandering and refusal to do so deprives citizens of the most fundamental rights, allowing gerrymanders to debase and dishonour American democracy, “turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people” [11].

Works Cited

1. “California Proposition 50.” Associated Press News, December 12, 2025. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2025/california/.

2. Shaw v. Reno. 509 U.S. 630 (1993).

3. Baker v. Carr. 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

4. Hutzler, Alexandra. “Texas Redistricting: What’s at Stake as Republicans Aim to Pick Up 5 House Seats.” ABC News, August 5, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-redistricting-stake-republicans-aim-pick-5-house/story?id=124377064.

5. Koseff, Alexei. “Newsom ramps up California redistricting threat as Texas weighs new Republican maps.” KPBS, July 28, 2025. https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2025/07/28/newsom-ramps-up-california-redistricting-threat-as-texas-weighs-new-republican-maps.

6. “California Statewide Special Election November 4, 2025: Official Voter Information Guide.” California Secretary of State. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/quick-reference-guide/50.htm.

7. “Redistricting Report Card: Illinois 2021 Congressional - Enacted” Princeton Gerrymandering Project. https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/?planId=receAu6OJuYEkxKjG.

8. Wu, Nicholas and Reisman, Nick and Kashinsky, Lisa. “Why Hakeem Jeffries hasn’t been able to bend Democrats to his will on redistricting.” Politico, August 12, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/12/hakeem-jeffries-democrats-redistricting-push-00559156?nid=00000150-1596-d4ac-a1d4-179e288b0000&nname=illinois-playbook&nrid=1e4578f3-8b47-4d73-afb5-081ef9604e50.

9. Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004).

10. Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).

11. Justice Kagan, dissenting, in Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019).